LinkBack URL
About LinkBackssimple solution, 2 armies. Women can set up their own army, to their own standards, both armies have to compete for jobs, funding split dependant on number of personnel.
(yes this is lighthearted)
simple solution, 2 armies. Women can set up their own army, to their own standards, both armies have to compete for jobs, funding split dependant on number of personnel.
(yes this is lighthearted)
We're only here for the Banter - The Luvvies - Chewin' The Fat
Violence and Lubrication is the solution to fixing everything, if it still doesn't work, you need more lubrication.
Originally Posted by this_is_gav
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/29/wo...ml?hpt=imi_mid
I guess that we are fortunate enough to be in a position where our concern (based on the original post) is cost.
Hopefully this will remain the case forever, and we won't ever be so backed against the wall that we wish that we had the infrastructure in place to train and support female soldiers to boost our military power.
This issue is back in the news again, at least a little (and on the American side of the pond), with two generals stating that with the opening of all combat roles to women, as well as men, women should now be required to register for any potential draft.
NY Times
Various politicians and others have come out stating that they would not vote for women to be required to register for the draft, and you know what? This is a really interesting and serious question - it is, in some ways, a real litmus test of this whole issue, casting it in a revealing light.
Just to be clear, the question here concerns the a military draft - which is the legal ability of a nation (the USA in this case) to call upon and require its 'able bodied' men (18-26 years old) to sign up and join the military in a time of need. Thankfully this isn't something they or, or the UK, have needed in a long time. Hopefully it's something no-one will ever need again.
Some might question the whole idea of the draft. Fair enough. However, at the present time it's still on the books, still legal, and still, therefore, a very real possibility, should the necessary circumstances arise. While things remain this way, the question has now become whether a nation can or should be able to call upon any and all 'able bodied' women and require them to join the front lines.
Prior to this the question of 'Women in the military' has been all about whether women should have "equal rights" to serve in any area of the military (and for those, like me, who say 'No', it's also about whether supposed rights (and political correctness) trump practicalities, and harsh realities.). With this latest move, though, the issue is no longer about any woman's right to serve equally, but has moved on to all women's equal responsibility to serve when called.
Certainly the latter would seem to follow logically from the former, and I suspect for many, it casts a rather horrible shade upon the whole issue. It raises the question, are the Americans, or are we, ready, happy, and, most importantly, do we think it's actually a good idea, for our sisters and mothers and daughters to be called upon by our nation, and forced to become soldiers, on the front line (or rather, in urban combat zones), as well as our brothers, and fathers and sons? Are we okay with the notion of calling up women to face the very real possibility of not just death and the aggression of war, but also the particular risk of rape, gang rape, and similar abuse? More over, do we really feel that most young women will be able to adequately serve on the battlefield, and are we happy to expose this larger number of women to the documented reality of harsher wear and tear and physical damage that comes to women from serving as soldiers?
These are some rather poignant questions about a very serious reality. I very much hope that American (and British) societies can come to what is, I believe, a just and reasoned and sensible and profitable conclusion, that says no, women should not be required to be drafted, and maybe on top of that, that some areas of the military should remain closed to women for those same reasons, as have been seen here in this thread and elsewhere.
What a grim future the alternative is.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
It's ok, we're already legalising testing live embryos and paving the way for designer babies. We are getting the police being told not to raid brothels and turn a blind eye to prostitution. Today it was announced that criminals shouldn't have to disclose convictions. Summer camps and youth groups will be inspected to check for not "subverting British values". The government can snoop on your private internet usage with little accountability. The list goes on. Grim future? You sure it's not just around the corner? We're teeing up a house of cards and at some point we risk the grumpy maladjusted individual running in and pulling the cloth out entirely. A nation can turn in a very short space of time to something very ugly indeed.
Going back to the matter at hand - it is a more serious example of the woman who complains that she doesn't get given a seat on the tube/have the door held open for her anymore - but then states she is a staunch feminist and pro women's rights. You can't have both!
The price of equal rights is equal responsibility.
You can't have it both ways I have absolutely no time for this Faux-Feminist; "I want equality, but I don't want to be treated like a man" nonsense. As I've ranted about on here before. Neither does anyone who knows what the word Feminist actually means. If there's no longer going to be such a thing as 'woman's job' or a 'woman's place'; Then there should be no such thing as a "man's place" or a "man's job".
Rape during capture is a non issue captured guys get raped all the time. Ask all those Afghan lad's if their penis protected them from Bacha Bazi/Man Love Thursday's. The US has quite the reputation for raping it's prisoners male and female, object rape being an approved 'enhanced interrogation'[sic] technique. Which quite plainly shows what rape is during warfare, just another form of torture. Not to mention Abu Ghraib etc ad nauseam.
If rape is such a fear over and above death you can follow the Israeli model with the Hannibal directive; target all movement in the area with overwhelming force until the soldier is freed or killed.
Harder on their bodies, I'm sure but seeing as men are ten times more likely to be killed or suffer life changing injuries at work and three and a half times more likely to commit suicide. Maybe it's about time women stepped up and took some of that burden? If those stats were reversed every Feminist on the planet would be up in arms, demanding redress and they wouldn't be wrong. Like I said; The price of equal rights is equal responsibility.
Last edited by chuckskull; 09-02-2016 at 07:59 PM.
Yes.
No.and paving the way for designer babies.
Can I also complain that I don't get the door held open for me any more?Going back to the matter at hand - it is a more serious example of the woman who complains that she doesn't get given a seat on the tube/have the door held open for her anymore - but then states she is a staunch feminist and pro women's rights. You can't have both!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote